Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT18 S2 Q2 Explanation

All cattle ranchers dislike long winters.

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

TopicsStrengthen

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

All cattle ranchers dislike

All ski resort owners like long winters because long winters profits.

Some lawyers are

What this question is testing

Strengthen

Your task

Find the choice that makes the argument's conclusion more likely to be true.

Common trap

Answers that are consistent with the argument but add no real support, or that strengthen a claim the argument doesn't make.

Winning move

Locate the gap between evidence and conclusion, then pick the choice that closes it.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
2.

Which one of the following statements, if true and added to those above, most supports the conclusion that no ski

Answer choices

  1. Already Knew This9% picked this

    Some cattle ranchers are

    Some statements are reversible. Since we already knew that some lawyers are cattle ranchers, we already knew that some cattle ranchers are lawyers.

  2. Too Weak13% picked this

    Some people who dislike long winters are not

    This says nothing about lawyers or ski resort owners, and the strength of "Some" is not going to help us prove a conclusion that "ZERO ski resort owners are lawyers".

  3. Correct61% picked this

    All lawyers are cattle

    Why this is right

    All lawyers are cattle ranchers. All cattle ranchers dislike long winters. Thus, all lawyers dislike long winters. All ski resort owners like long winters, Thus, no lawyers are ski resort owners. Or if you prefer the formal look: CR → ~LW → ~SRO (evidence) + L → CR (answer) ------------------------------------- L → CR → ~LW → ~SRO (conclusion) SRO → LW → ~CR → ~L

    Skill tested: Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

  4. Reverses Something We Know15% picked this

    All people who dislike long winters are

    We knew that CR → ~LW and this tells us that ~LW → CR But this doesn't add on to what we already had and tell us anything about lawyers. CR → ~LW → ~SRO ~LW → CR = nothing useful.

  5. Not Useful2% picked this

    All people with increasing profits own

    This doesn't tell us about "All lawyers" or "All ski resort owners", which means it's not going to allow us to prove the conclusion. Getting a rule that says Increasing Profits → SKO doesn't help us to assemble a logical path from SKO to ~L.

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free